Skip to main content

tv   [untitled]    January 1, 2014 8:30am-9:01am PST

8:30 am
existing formula retail use. i hope you see through the trees and ask you to approve this application. i have someone from a pet shop across the street and i sent that to kc. here is a letter for you from the model a ford club from america in support. we are available to answer any questions that you might have. >> thank you. >> is there any public comment on this item? you will need to speak
8:31 am
into microphone. >> first and foremost i'm definitely for see's candy coming into space of mike's camera. i think it's a wonderful organization and i totally support it. the reason i'm here today is not to relitigate past decisions. i was here in june of this year
8:32 am
regarding chipotle. what i want to do just very briefly speak about what i think is a flawed policy and that's the 20 percent rule. in april 11, 2013. this commission proposed a policy a numerical way to calculate within the district to provide a clear and consistent way to determine concentration based on current practices and standards. this has been a test and i believe this formula is not clear, not consistent and it is flawed. it is created a lot of confusion and it is not fair and it does not consider important criteria. i just want, -- [inaudible]. >> sir, you are going to need to speak into microphone. if you tilt it. we need to get it in the record so the television
8:33 am
can hear what your comments are. if i can ask you in relation to the policy to speak to how it relates to this project because that's the item before the commission, not the policy itself. >> i understand. there is the 300 radius for the previous project. there is the new area for this project. this is a 1 inch to 75 feet, this is a 1 inch to 50 feet. this is a huge area compared to a smaller area. so they are not comparable. i want to ask the commission why the areas in blue were not calculated in the formula while they were calculated in the previous one? all i'm saying is that i would like you to realize that apples to apples, oranges to oranges
8:34 am
and it's not being do you know if you are comparing two totally different areas and not including things that were included in one and not other. i thank you for your time. >> thank you. next public speaker. i have a card here christina wall deck. >> thank you, i too am here to speak and give great support to the see's candy project. i won't go into anymore detail except that i do wish that i'm very happy to understand that there are difficulties about the 20 percent policy are alleviated because they are taking a space that was formally formula retail. so the issue was vastly different than others, but i do wish and we came here today simply to ask that the policy that this commission has adopted be
8:35 am
revisited. we feel it doesn't serve the citizenry of san francisco well. i thank you for your time. >> thank you. any further public comment? >> can i get you to hand this to the commissioners. >> sure. go ahead and start speaking. >> i'm walter chaplain. i lived in dolores heights for 10 years before i moved to forest noels for the last 3 years. i'm here to support see's candy for their new location in the safe way shopping center. see's candy has been a local done -- donor for many years. the model a club which has been around
8:36 am
since 1956 raises money for many to its benefit car shows for many local charities including make a wish foundation. see's candy for many years has been a supporter and helped us in our efforts. more recently see's helped the harvey rights milk academy when the car show was in the castro. additionally, my 93-year-old neighbor who drives currently to stones town to clemente street to go to see's candy store is all excited that she'll be able to buy see's candy nearby. she goes to other
8:37 am
locations. she too living in forest knowles and still driving would love to see a see's candy here on market street. i believe that see's candy proposed use is appropriate. in the immediate context, it will serve the community. it provides a product and a service that the community would like to see. i was there at their open house when people came in and inquired just off the street about job prospects and told how and when to apply for candy and i think they will be a good community and serving people in the merchant market area. >> thank you. is there any additional public comment? seeing none, public comment is closed. >> commissioner borden? >> great, i'm going to start about addressing the 20 percent rule. that is something the commission came up with as a
8:38 am
policy. we still have our discretion and able to choose whether or not we feel a project given the 20 percent rule should or should not be determined. it is our discretion and we wanted that policy in place when proposing formulae retail that the contention is not to support it. it doesn't mean we would not support it but they would have to meet a higher bar. i would agree this project is different. it is within a safe way shopping center. it is a type business that there are not a lot, there are chocolates here in san francisco that are local but there really aren't a lot of other businesses that compete directly with see's and don't compete directly with anything else maybe with safe way if you like junk candy. but see's is different in that
8:39 am
regard. that spot where mike's camera was, i never understood why camera shops were so popular since no one i know buys a camera anymore, but nonetheless it's a perfect location for this use. i'm not saying that because i love see's candy and i'm 3 blocks away but this is a location in terms of the shopping center and how it plays out. people are not just walking through that parking lot to go to the businesses. so i think this is a unique situation and i'm very supportive. i think see's is a great business. we don't have an over proliferation of see's candies. i was sad when the other one closed down. this is a great space. i can't think of any other kind of spot. >> i tend to agree with your
8:40 am
comments. you brought up the point about the 20 percent rule. i don't know whether it works for you or against you. in your case i think we are looking at a host of things besides the 20 percent rule. i'm not a big fan of the 20 percent rule. it's the location, what it replaces, a number of other locations and the type of use and other like uses. i think it speaks volumes that there aren't the number of people here than for the other two formula retails in discussion in the neighborhood. this is the right location for it in a much different use than what we were presented with before. so as we look at the 20 percent rule and revise it, i think those are good points. just a question how many other stand-alone retail stores do you have. i recall the polk street too, but are there others in the city quarters?
8:41 am
>> stones town and clemente have been mentioned. we have a store in embarcadero and corner of market, sampson and sutter. >> no other stores in the city neighborhoods besides downtown. wasn't there one on ocean? >> many years ago there was one 1 on ocean street and marina. we had just a package store for a few years in union square. >> all right. thank you. >> commissioner antonini. >> i agree with the other commissioners, there is lots of neighborhood support and we are going from one formula retail use to another formula retail use. i just sort of question the, i too don't like the way the policy was enacted in the
8:42 am
300-foot which i think is too small an area and i agree with the speakers earlier. i'm not sure if this was applied in the same way the other measurements were made to this project. speaking to this project. the other thing i would have to look at the legislation that this commission had passed a while back whether it speaks to intensifying the amount of formula retail or only maintaining the amount of formula retail. because here it substitutes one for another and doesn't make it intent. here the policy dictates the staff must recommend this approval. that's a moot point because i think we are going to pass it hopefully anyway. and it's employing, it's an employer that you don't have to have a college degree for and there is a need for that kind of
8:43 am
employment and as a member of the dental profession i can also say it provides employment for our profession too in some instances. and the other thing that was brought up was the parking for the 93-year-old woman. yeah, while you can go to stones town and there is parking, a lot of people who are somewhat compromised mobility and they can drive and can't walk long distances you can get to the store and get back in your car. where in stones town sometimes you have to take quite a hike. in this time of year you have to look at about a half mile when the lots are filled with christmas shoppers. i am in support of this. >> commissioner sugaya. >> yeah, we won't be labor the issue. i will make a motion to approve and find adoption for conditional use. >> second.
8:44 am
>> commissioner moore? >> i would like to say that while the description is formula retail in the context of the safe way center i think it's specialty retail which encourages people to walk and has a positive face to the public. so i think it is a very good addition and there is not which all the other commissioners said i wouldn't support. >> commissioners, there is a motion and second as proposed at the conditions as drafted. with that commissioner antonini, moore, sugaya, wu, [roll call vote taken] that motion passes unanimously 6-0. places you in items 16 a and b. 16a. 2013.1001dv c.
8:45 am
noel; 4155 575-91255 1072-74 sanchez street - west side of sanchez street between 24th and elizabeth streets; lot 004 in assessor's block 3654 - mandatory discretionary review, pursuant to planning code section 317, of building permit application no. 2013.1021.9769, proposing to reconfigure the existing three-unit building to a two-unit building. the property is located within a rh-3 residential, house three-familyy zoning district and 40-x height and bulk district. this action constitutes the approval action for the project for purposes of ceqa, pursuant to section 31.044hh of the san francisco administrative code. preliminary recommendation: do not take discretionary review and approve 1234123416b. 2013.1001dv c. noel; 4155 575-91255 1072-74 sanchez street - west side of sanchez street between 24th and elizabeth streets; lot 004 in assessor's block 3654 - request for a rear yard variance, pursuant to planning code sections 134 to replace a rear staircase with a third floor balcony and second floor landing at the rear of the dwelling, as well as, a horizontal addition/infill at the rear of the dwelling on the first and second floors at the southwest elevation. the property is located within a rh-3 residential, house three-familyy zoning district and 40-x height and bulk district. 12341234 good afternoon. the item before you is a proposal to merge three dwelling units into two dwelling units. the structure was built in 1880 as two dwellings. in 1949 the structure was converted to three dwelling units. one on the third floor and smaller units on the second floor. the project includes interior alteration which includes a stairway and elevator to pro access to all floor levels. the dwelling unit on the second floor also known as 1072 sanchez street is a studio and living and dining and kitchen and one bathroom. the rear unit also known as 1072 b. includes
8:46 am
one bedroom and one bathroom. the existing 1180 square -square foot on the third floor, consist of an open plan living, dining, a kitchen and study, three bedrooms and two bathrooms. after the merger, the front dwelling unit on the second floor would be retained as a smaller studio consisting of 90 square feet. the new second dwelling unit, to be known as 1074 sachse sanchez street will be 1840 square feet. the second dwelling unit would also include repurpose storage space at the rear of the first floor. the second
8:47 am
unit open dining, two bedrooms, one 1/2 bathrooms. additionally the additional unit would include a master bedroom and bathroom on the second floor along with the library and bathroom on the first floor. the proposal includes replacing a staircase on the balcony. additionally the proposal includes a horizontal at the rear of the dwelling on the first and second floor at the southwest elevation. per west of the planning code this property is maintaining a rear yard. the proposed info landing and balcony would encroach approximately a rear yard and setback of approximately 11 feet. therefore the project requires a variance from the rear yard requirement code. the project sponsor has submitted
8:48 am
for the rear yard requirement. the zoning administrator will hold a public hearing on the required variance and the planning commission will consider the discretionary review. the planning department is recommending not to take a discretionary review. i'm available for questions. >> thank you. project sponsor? good afternoon. i have some additional documentation that i would like to submit. first the declaration of posting for both the variance and the discretionary review and also one drawing called sko 1 which is a relocation of the bridge from the second floor to the rear yard. my name is
8:49 am
bonnie bridges and i'm a principal and bore bridges architecture and our clients retained us to assist them with this remodel. the merger, i have 2 points to make. the clients purchased this house over 5 years ago at which time there was one tenant in one of the smaller units. that tenant moved out shortly after the purchase because she got married. those two small units on the second floor have remained vacant since that time. my clients live in the top floor. my client are merging their families. they have a daughter who split their time between los angeles and here and they are going to have birth tomorrow for their new child and they are on their way
8:50 am
here. they rescheduled their c-section. it was supposed to be today until we got the hearing date. so they scheduled it for tomorrow. they should be here shortly. the point is, they purchased this property with the intention of it being a 2-unit dwelling unit for their family and their extended family. the fact that it has been greater than five 5 years since these two small dwelling units were on the market means they are not considered housing stock means we are not reducing housing stock. second point is that the three bedroom two bath units that is currently on the third floor where they live consist of one kind of normal size bedroom and two very small bedrooms of about 8-foot by 10 -foot. with an extended family
8:51 am
including in laws and different age kids. this didn't meet their needs. we did explore trying to keep the larger of the two rental units on the second floor, but the need for the elevator and the common foyer basically prohibited that plan from making any sense. it would eat up ridiculous amounts. we don't feel the size of the third floor dwelling unit which then combines a little bit of the second and first floor to be an egregious size house. it's three bedroom, three 1/2 bath. in terms of the variance, the rear is fairly insignificant. it's taking in
8:52 am
unsafe condition and basically making it safe. if you looked at the plans you can see where that is filled in. the deck on the third floor provides a less invasive condition into the rear yard open space. we are taking away a large stair in that we are adding spring clers -- sprinklers to the building. the sk one is access to the rear yard from the second floor. it was going to be further to the north which is what the right hand original project shows and is going to land in the middle of the
8:53 am
property and less invasive design to any adjacent neighbors. >> that concludes my presentation and i'm happy to answer any questions. >> thank you. >> is there any additional public comment? seeing none, public comment is closed. >> commissioner antonini? >> i agree with the speaker. i would like to ask the sponsor, there are probably some in laws living in the house from time to time, is that what we are talking about? >> that's correct. susan who should be here shortly, her parents are here now who will stay on and off to assist with the children and their plan is to eventually move in to the small rental unit and they would need the use of the elevator. >> that sounds like a climb to
8:54 am
get to the other units, that's the main unit. >> correct. >> it's a two level unit now. will be a 2-unit level when it's completed. >> it will actually be a three level unit. if you visualize it from the top floor, the main house, the three bedroom house goes across the top floor and then essentially down the back i had. so it includes the back little section of the second floor and a little section on the first floor. >> yeah. thank you. i definitely agree this makes a lot of sense particularly for the needs of this family, but in creating a more functional home for families in the future even if this one wasn't here because we have a shortage of larger homes which have enough room for extending families even given the in laws might or
8:55 am
the grandparents might live in the separate lower unit still a large family. it's not excessive what they are asking to do with their own property. it was originally 2 units as it was and the other things we are seeing is that the entire neighborhood is all one and 2-unit buildings with the exception of two larger buildings which have more units. so i think this makes sense to me. it was purchased as you said in 2007 with no intentions of ever being a rental unit because it's their home and we would be inconveniencing them by not allowing these changes. i would be supportive of not taking the dr for the merger
8:56 am
and make a motion financing -- to that effect. >> do i hear a second, commissioners. >> okay. that motion fails. >> commissioner hills >> can i ask a question. i thought you were going back to the original 2-unit. it's a little odd, the layout. i think you are trying to work with the needs of the family. there is a concern that we are giving up 3 units and not even getting 2 units back here. is there any way to add like a studio. do you contemplate that bottom unit, that ground garage being a studio apartment? >> we sliced and diced this more than anybody would want to
8:57 am
know to meet their needs as well as comply with the planning codes. i have seen some of you before. i take the housing issue seriously and i understand the need to have as many housing units available in the city as is possible. we did explore keeping the rear unit as the maintained unit and we did explore trying to maintain a unit on the ground floor as you suggested because of the nature of the beast which is a couple trying to build their home for the long-term. there was a few non-negotiable items from the husband's perspective one of which was a library that opened up that was way from everybody else in the family.
8:58 am
that's not for you to care about, but we did explore that. it didn't make sense for this project. >> maybe i can ask some questions. do you have any comparison of similar cases. every single family house is very different. but if you can just give us some perspective on whenever this sits on other mandatory dr cases you have
8:59 am
seen. >> i will defer this to washington. >> we evaluate this case based on the criteria. essentially they that had majority of those particular findings to support. as far as trying to job my memory specifically on projects where we have had residential alterations that resulted in creation of a unit that was substantially smaller than what may have been the original configuration when the structure was 1st built, unfortunately i can't think of any specific ones where we had. it has come up. it has been approved in the past. ideally we prefer the flats, the units be similar to how it was originally constructed, but again that was -- with this project, it complied with our
9:00 am
basics to be able to support the request. but that was a concern. we did mention that to the project sponsors. and again, it is their program that i think this layout works best for them. >> thank you. i think that would be more my preference to have not just this very large unit in the rental unit on the plan. but i'm open to hearing what the discussion is. commissioner antonini? >> i just think there is a need for this type of thing. there are many families in san francisco who have similar circumstances where they have multiple children, more anticipated and people should be able to work within the stock of what they already own because as we know there has been a huge appreciation in


info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on